14 ms·

We need a legally enforcible mechanism to make anyone think twice before using data without consent. This must have the effect with AI training models, that if

We need a legally enforcible mechanism to make anyone think twice before using data without consent. This must have the effect with AI training models, that if a persons data has been incorporated without consent, or they legally revoke assumed consent, the data must be removed. At present, AFAICS that would mean voiding an entire model. That would be expensive and so be a stiff deterrent against abuse. Copyright has failed. But there are sutely other tricks to play.

pacmanincarnate 3y ago
Why do you believe training an AI model shouldn’t be considered fair use, especially when they are predominantly trained on publicly available information? It’s a completely transformative work where the model contains no part of the original data.
arkh 3y ago
Some kind of Regulation of Data to Protect it. And maybe make it General? https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ > The data subject must also be informed about his or her right to withdraw consent anytime. The withdrawal must be as easy as giving consent. > Last but not least, consent must be unambiguous, which means it requires either a statement or a clear affirmative act. Consent cannot be implied and must always be given through an opt-in, a declaration or an active motion, so that there is no misunderstanding that the data subject has consented to the particular processing. https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ > For especially severe violations, listed in Art. 83(5) GDPR, the fine framework can be up to 20 million euros, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of their total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. But even the catalogue of less severe violations in Art. 83(4) GDPR sets forth fines of up to 10 million euros, or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 2% of its entire global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  This would never work! Seriously though, the hole I am trying to plug here is remedy. Where is the individual remedy against someone who takes my data for their own profit? Sure I can get an official body to act for me, impose fines etc. But if, at near zero cost, I can force them to delete it - no exceptions - that's a powerful response. I'm probably mistaken but right now I don't see that to hand despite the fancy wording about data "belonging to the subject".
  - salawat 3y ago
    The issue is that every business operator relying on this overnight would have to shift massive amounts of capital into their legal departments to create a remediation pipeline, fundamentally shift their architecture to include permission first targeting of training information, and most importantly, the Courts would be instantly swamped with just cases dealing with this kind of case for years while lobbying would go on for years to cripple any such remedy establishment. In short, what you propose is the abolishment of the click through EULA, and a return to exercise of contract law as originally intended. This kills the tech enabled business sector, because they'd essentially have to de-scale or die under an avalanche of judicial remediation. Which I want, to be quite frank. It'd be awesome.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      It would definitely be a very good thing to restore real contract law. The "click through EULA" was a fork in the road where our legal system went wrong and slid into a ditch and things have been spiralling downwards ever since. Tech companies relying on unjust methods absolutely should go bust, and good riddance, > instantly swamped with just cases dealing That's interesting. It's almost tempting to see that as an argument against justice :) Right now in the UK we've potentially 4k - 5k pending cases for about £600,000 compensation each against the Post Office. It is already technically bankrupt on paper and will have to be dissolved and re-nationalised under the next government. So in many places in the world, the backlog of cases that courts cannot deal with is the only thing keeping some large criminal enterprises alive. In other words the sheer scale of their injustice is what protects them. What did Stalin say, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"?
__loam 3y ago
Google algorithmic disgorgement

pacmanincarnate 3y ago

Why do you believe training an AI model shouldn’t be considered fair use, especially when they are predominantly trained on publicly available information? It’s a completely transformative work where the model contains no part of the original data.

arkh 3y ago

Some kind of Regulation of Data to Protect it. And maybe make it General? https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent/ > The data subject must also be informed about his or her right to withdraw consent anytime. The withdrawal must be as easy as giving consent. > Last but not least, consent must be unambiguous, which means it requires either a statement or a clear affirmative act. Consent cannot be implied and must always be given through an opt-in, a declaration or an active motion, so that there is no misunderstanding that the data subject has consented to the particular processing. https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/fines-penalties/ > For especially severe violations, listed in Art. 83(5) GDPR, the fine framework can be up to 20 million euros, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of their total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher. But even the catalogue of less severe violations in Art. 83(4) GDPR sets forth fines of up to 10 million euros, or, in the case of an undertaking, up to 2% of its entire global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
This would never work! Seriously though, the hole I am trying to plug here is remedy. Where is the individual remedy against someone who takes my data for their own profit? Sure I can get an official body to act for me, impose fines etc. But if, at near zero cost, I can force them to delete it - no exceptions - that's a powerful response. I'm probably mistaken but right now I don't see that to hand despite the fancy wording about data "belonging to the subject".
- salawat 3y ago
  The issue is that every business operator relying on this overnight would have to shift massive amounts of capital into their legal departments to create a remediation pipeline, fundamentally shift their architecture to include permission first targeting of training information, and most importantly, the Courts would be instantly swamped with just cases dealing with this kind of case for years while lobbying would go on for years to cripple any such remedy establishment. In short, what you propose is the abolishment of the click through EULA, and a return to exercise of contract law as originally intended. This kills the tech enabled business sector, because they'd essentially have to de-scale or die under an avalanche of judicial remediation. Which I want, to be quite frank. It'd be awesome.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    It would definitely be a very good thing to restore real contract law. The "click through EULA" was a fork in the road where our legal system went wrong and slid into a ditch and things have been spiralling downwards ever since. Tech companies relying on unjust methods absolutely should go bust, and good riddance, > instantly swamped with just cases dealing That's interesting. It's almost tempting to see that as an argument against justice :) Right now in the UK we've potentially 4k - 5k pending cases for about £600,000 compensation each against the Post Office. It is already technically bankrupt on paper and will have to be dissolved and re-nationalised under the next government. So in many places in the world, the backlog of cases that courts cannot deal with is the only thing keeping some large criminal enterprises alive. In other words the sheer scale of their injustice is what protects them. What did Stalin say, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"?

__loam 3y ago

Google algorithmic disgorgement